Call for Papers: JURIX 2010 in Liverpool (UK)
[Apologies for cross-postings. Please forward this e-mail to anyone interested.] Full text available at: http://conference.jurix.nl/2010/cfp.html JURIX 2010 The 23rd International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems University of Liverpool (U.K.), 16th-17th December 2010 http://conference.jurix.nl/2010 For more than 20 years the Jurix Conference has provided an international forum for academics and practitioners in the field of legal informatics for sharing ideas and experiences on the representation of legal content and its representation in computer systems. We invite submission of original papers on the advanced management of legal information and knowledge (foundations, methods, tools, systems and applications), including but not limited to the following: • systems supporting lawyers, in legal reasoning, document drafting, negotiation • systems supporting the production and management of legislation, in agenda setting, policy analysis, drafting, workflow management, monitoring implementation • systems supporting the judiciary, in application of the law, analysis of evidence, management of cases • systems supporting police activities, in forensic inquiries, search and evaluation of evidence, management of investigations • systems supporting public administration, in applying regulations and managing information • systems for the retrieval of legal information • systems supporting legal education • systems for digital-rights management • systems supporting the acquisition, management or use of legal knowledge, using rules, cases, neural networks, intelligent agents or other methods • systems supporting alternative dispute resolution, particularly on-line • systems and methods to support regulatory compliance and compliance of business processes • systems and method to support policies and legal issues for social networks • theoretical foundations for the use of Artificial Intelligence in the legal domain • models of legal knowledge, including concepts (legal ontologies), rules, cases, principles, values and procedures • models of legal inference and argumentation • methods for verifying and validating legal knowledge systems • methods and techniques for managing legal information in the semantic web • methods for managing organizational change when introducing legal knowledge systems • XML standards for legal documents, including legislative, judicial, administrative acts as well as private documents, such as contracts • methods for modelling the legal interactions of autonomous agents and digital institutions Papers should be submitted through the Jurix Conference Management System, using PDF, PostScript or Word format, and should not exceed 10 pages when formatted using the styles and guidelines in the Instructions for Authors. The conference proceedings will be published by IOS Press (Amsterdam, Berlin, Oxford, Tokyo, Washington DC) in their series “Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications” before the Conference. Program Committee Chair Radboud Winkels, Leibniz Center for Law, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands Organisation Committee Chair Katie Atkinson, University of Liverpool, U.K. Important Dates * August 29th, 2010 Deadline for submission of abstracts * September 5th, 2010 Deadline for submission of papers * September 19th, 2010 Deadline for submission of tutorials, workshops and demonstration proposals * October 1st, 2010 Notification of paper acceptance * October 17th, 2010 Camera-ready papers due * December (14th and) 15th, 2010 Jurix Workshops/Tutorials * December 16th-17th, 2010 Jurix 2010 Main Conference --- Dr Rinke Hoekstra AI Department | Leibniz Center for Law Faculty of Sciences | Faculty of Law Vrije Universiteit| Universiteit van Amsterdam De Boelelaan 1081a| Kloveniersburgwal 48 1081 HV Amsterdam | 1012 CX Amsterdam +31-(0)20-5987752 | +31-(0)20-5253497 hoeks...@few.vu.nl| hoeks...@uva.nl Homepage: http://www.few.vu.nl/~hoekstra
Please stop massive crawling against http://openean.kaufkauf.net/id/
Dear all: The volunteer who is hosting http://openean.kaufkauf.net/id/, a huge set of GoodRelations product model data, is experiencing a problematic amount of traffic from unidentified crawlers located in Ireland (DERI?), the Netherlands (VUA?), and the USA. The crawling has been so intense that he had to temporarily block all traffic to this dataset. In case you are operating any kind of Semantic Web crawlers that tried to access this dataset, please 1. check your crawler for bugs that create excessive traffic (e.g. by redundant requests), 2. identify your crawler agent properly in the HTTP header, indicating a contact person, and 3. implement some bandwidth throttling technique that limits the bandwidth consumption on a single host to a moderate amount. Note that the full dataset is always up to date in the LOD SPARQL endpoint at http://lod.openlinksw.com/sparql Thus, there is rarely a need to crawl the complete dataset. Thanks for your consideration. Best wishes Martin Hepp -- -- -- martin hepp e-business web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: h...@ebusiness-unibw.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! = Project page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ Resources for developers: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations Webcasts: Overview - http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ How-to - http://vimeo.com/7583816 Recipe for Yahoo SearchMonkey: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_and_Yahoo_SearchMonkey Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology http://www.slideshare.net/mhepp/semantic-webbased-ecommerce-the-goodrelations-ontology-1535287 Overview article on Semantic Universe: http://www.semanticuniverse.com/articles-semantic-web-based-e-commerce-webmasters-get-ready.html Tutorial materials: ISWC 2009 Tutorial: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in Brief: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/Web_of_Data_for_E-Commerce_Tutorial_ISWC2009
Re: Organization ontology
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 22:27 +0100, William Waites wrote: On 10-06-03 16:04, Dave Reynolds wrote: It would be great if you could suggest a better phrasing of the description of a FormalOrganization that would better encompass the range of entities you think should go there? Or are you advocating that the distinction between a generic organization and a externally recognized semi-autonomous organization is not a useful one? Reading the rest of your mail, I think the latter. Do we really need FormalOrganisation at all? Can we not just have Organisation and then some extension vocabulary could have subclasses for different flavours of partnerships, corporations, unincorporated associations etc. as needed? Indeed, as it says in the documentation, almost all Organization categorization is left to extension vocabularies and we deliberately avoided including distinctions such as partnerships, corporations etc since they are so jurisdiction-specific. The only categorization we included is this separation between externally recognized entities and internal units - extensions and applications are free to by-pass that and directly exploit org:Organization. I don't think the distinction is useless as such, perhaps that it is underspecified and Formal is ambiguous. I agree there's an element of underspecification in there. However, sufficiently many of the existing vocabularies that we surveyed have a similar separation that it seemed valuable to include it, if only to help with mapping. Over time, if people apply org but find this distinction unhelpful or confusing we could deprecate it. The aim here was to get something workable (not necessarily perfect) done quickly and make it available. If org proves useful then it can improved in response to application experience. Cheers, Dave
Re: Please stop massive crawling against http://openean.kaufkauf.net/id/
One could put the data behind foaf+ssl, and so identify agents :-) Henry On 8 Jun 2010, at 10:03, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote: Dear all: The volunteer who is hosting http://openean.kaufkauf.net/id/, a huge set of GoodRelations product model data, is experiencing a problematic amount of traffic from unidentified crawlers located in Ireland (DERI?), the Netherlands (VUA?), and the USA. The crawling has been so intense that he had to temporarily block all traffic to this dataset. In case you are operating any kind of Semantic Web crawlers that tried to access this dataset, please 1. check your crawler for bugs that create excessive traffic (e.g. by redundant requests), 2. identify your crawler agent properly in the HTTP header, indicating a contact person, and 3. implement some bandwidth throttling technique that limits the bandwidth consumption on a single host to a moderate amount. Note that the full dataset is always up to date in the LOD SPARQL endpoint at http://lod.openlinksw.com/sparql Thus, there is rarely a need to crawl the complete dataset. Thanks for your consideration. Best wishes Martin Hepp -- -- -- martin hepp e-business web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: h...@ebusiness-unibw.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! = Project page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ Resources for developers: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations Webcasts: Overview - http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ How-to - http://vimeo.com/7583816 Recipe for Yahoo SearchMonkey: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_and_Yahoo_SearchMonkey Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology http://www.slideshare.net/mhepp/semantic-webbased-ecommerce-the-goodrelations-ontology-1535287 Overview article on Semantic Universe: http://www.semanticuniverse.com/articles-semantic-web-based-e-commerce-webmasters-get-ready.html Tutorial materials: ISWC 2009 Tutorial: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in Brief: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/Web_of_Data_for_E-Commerce_Tutorial_ISWC2009
Re: Organization ontology
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 01:03 +0300, Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) wrote: Sorry for jumping in. I was thinking that a) the way i get FormalOrganization, it could as well be called LegalEntity to be more precise. Not quite, there are other LegalEntities that are not Organizations. The LegalEntity notion could be made explicit: org:FormalOrganization subClassOf org:Organization AND ns:LegalEntity This is better modelling because the primitive concepts are now explicit and the nature of org:FormalOrganization as a derived concept is clear. I nearly did it that way but my concern was that putting LegalEntity into org: would open up a whole can of worms about needing richer modelling of the notion of LegalEntity (e.g. Jurisdiction etc). That would be off topic for the focused goals and requirements for org. b) what happens when organizations change legal status? Pretty much any aspect of organizations change over time :) In the context of this work there are already separate approaches to handling versioning and change so org: defers to those. Though, in some applications you do want to explicitly represent the historical trace of those changes hence the inclusion of OPMV via org:ChangeEvent to give a minimal foundation for that. Cheers, Dave
Re: Please stop massive crawling against http://openean.kaufkauf.net/id/
Dear Martin, I guess the VUA crawler was our. The deficient process has been stopped now and won't be restarted before being checked for bugs. Sorry about all the problems caused. Best regards, Christophe On 06/08/2010 10:03 AM, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote: Dear all: The volunteer who is hosting http://openean.kaufkauf.net/id/, a huge set of GoodRelations product model data, is experiencing a problematic amount of traffic from unidentified crawlers located in Ireland (DERI?), the Netherlands (VUA?), and the USA. The crawling has been so intense that he had to temporarily block all traffic to this dataset. In case you are operating any kind of Semantic Web crawlers that tried to access this dataset, please 1. check your crawler for bugs that create excessive traffic (e.g. by redundant requests), 2. identify your crawler agent properly in the HTTP header, indicating a contact person, and 3. implement some bandwidth throttling technique that limits the bandwidth consumption on a single host to a moderate amount. Note that the full dataset is always up to date in the LOD SPARQL endpoint at http://lod.openlinksw.com/sparql Thus, there is rarely a need to crawl the complete dataset. Thanks for your consideration. Best wishes Martin Hepp -- Dr. Christophe Guéret (cgue...@few.vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~cgueret/ Postdoc working on SOKS (http://www.few.vu.nl/soks) Knowledge Representation Reasoning Group Computational Intelligence Group Department of Computer Science, AI VU University Amsterdam attachment: cgueret.vcf
Re: Organization ontology
Greetings! On 6/7/2010 11:27 PM, Todd Vincent wrote: In the law, there are two concepts (a) Person and (b) Entity. In simple terms: A person is a human. An entity is a non-human. Well, yes, in simple terms but the law isn't always simple. ;-) How would you handle municipalities that are considered to be persons for purposes of Title 42 Section 1983 actions? (civil rights) It remains a municipality for any number of legal purposes but is also a person in other contexts. I am sure a scan of the Federal Code (to say nothing of the case law) would turn up any number of nuances to the concept person. Perhaps not as complex as the attribution of ownership rules in the IRC but enough to be interesting. The law in logic folks did a lot of work on legal concepts. One of the journals was Modern Uses of Logic in Law, later became Jurimetrics. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick Generally, these terms are used to distinguish who has the capacity to sue, be sued, or who lacks the capacity to sue or be sued. A *person* (human) can sue or be sued in an individual capacity, with certain exceptions for juveniles, those who are legally insane, or who otherwise are deemed or adjudicated under the law to lack legal capacity. An *entity* must exist as a legal person under the laws of a state. An entity's existence under the laws of a state occurs either through registration (usually with the secretary of state) or by operation of law (can happen with a partnership). Generally, anything else is not a entity. For example, you cannot sue a group of people on a beach as a entity -- you would have to name each person individually. This is true, because the group of people on a beach typically have done nothing to form a legally recognized entity. From a legal perspective, calling something a Legal Entity is redundant; although from a non-legal perspective, it may provide clarity. In contrast a legal person is not redundant because most legal minds would understand this to mean an entity (i.e., a person with the capacity to sue and be sued that is not a human person). From a data modeling perspective, I find it straightforward to use the terms Person and Organization because (a) typically only lawyers understand Entity and (b) the data model for an organization tends to work for both (legal) entities and for organizations that might not fully meet the legal requirements for an entity. Taking the example below, a large corporation or government agency (both of which are [legal] entities) might be organized into non-legal divisions, subdivisions, departments, groups, etc, that are not (legal) entities but still might operate like, and need to be named as, an organization. Some companies have subsidiaries that are legal (entities). By adding OrganizationType to the Organization data model, you provide the ability to modify the type of organization and can then represent both (legal) entities and (legally unrecognized) organizations. Taxing authorities (e.g., the IRS) have different classifications for entities. An S Corporation, C Corporation, and a Non-Profit Corporation are all (legal) entities, even though their tax status differs. Hope this is helpful for what it is worth. Todd See also U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 17. *From:* public-egov-ig-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-requ...@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Patrick Logan *Sent:* Monday, June 07, 2010 7:50 PM *To:* Mike Norton *Cc:* public-egov...@w3.org; Dave Reynolds; William Waites; Linked Data community; William Waites; Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) *Subject:* Re: Organization ontology Large corporations often have multiple legal entities and many informal, somewhat overlapping business organizations. Just saying. I wrangled with that. There're several different use cases for these for internal vs external, customer/vendor, financial vs operations, etc. On Jun 7, 2010 3:19 PM, Mike Norton xsideofparad...@yahoo.com mailto:xsideofparad...@yahoo.com wrote: I can see Manos' point. It seems that LegalEntity rather the Organization would work well under a sub-domain such as .LAW or .DOJ or .SEC, but under other sub-domains such as .NASA, the Organization element might be better served as ProjectName. All instances would help specify the Organization type, while keeping Organization as the general unstylized element is probably ideal, as inferred by William Waites. Michael A. Norton *From:* Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) ma...@abiss.gr mailto:ma...@abiss.gr a) the way i get FormalOrganization, it could as well be called LegalEntity to be more precise -- Patrick Durusau patr...@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Re: Organization types predicates vs classes
On 10-06-08 04:27, Todd Vincent wrote: By adding OrganizationType to the Organization data model, you provide the ability to modify the type of organization and can then represent both (legal) entities and (legally unrecognized) organizations. :foo rdf:type SomeKindOfOrganisation . vs. :foo org:organisationType SomeKindOfOrganisation . I don't really see the need for an extra predicate with almost identical semantics to rdf:type. There is nothing stopping a subject from having more than one type. Having a special predicate doesn't really help with modification, you could easily do the same thing with rdf:type and still run up against the problem that there is no good way of specifying *when* a particular statement is true (OPMV notwithstanding) Cheers, -w -- William Waites william.wai...@okfn.org Mob: +44 789 798 9965Open Knowledge Foundation Fax: +44 131 464 4948Edinburgh, UK
Re: Organizations changing status
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:17 PM, William Waites william.wai...@okfn.org wrote: On 10-06-07 23:03, Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) wrote: b) what happens when organizations change legal status? I'm not certain but I don't think this ever really happens. In practice the old organisation ceases to exist and a new one comes into being possibly with a period of overlap. They may share the same name and informally be referred to as the same but technically they are different organisations. I think this suggests two predicates that are not present in the ontology -- org:successor and org:predecessor Here's a nice practical example: the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. http://purl.org/dc/aboutdcmi - http://dublincore.org/DCMI.rdf rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#; xmlns:rdfs=http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#; xmlns:dct=http://purl.org/dc/terms/; xmlns:foaf=http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/; foaf:Organization rdf:about=http://purl.org/dc/aboutdcmi#DCMI; foaf:nameDublin Core Metadata Initiative/foaf:name foaf:nickDCMI/foaf:nick foaf:homepage rdf:resource=http://dublincore.org/; / rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource=http://purl.org/dc/aboutdcmi; / dct:descriptionThe Dublin Core Metadata Initiative is an open forum engaged in the development of interoperable online metadata standards that support a broad range of purposes and business models. DCMI's activities include consensus-driven working groups, global conferences and workshops, standards liaison, and educational efforts to promote widespread acceptance of metadata standards and practices./dct:description dct:created1995-01-03/dct:created dct:subject rdf:resource=http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh96000740#concept/ dct:subject rdf:resource=http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh98002267#concept/ /foaf:Organization /rdf:RDF There was a little discussion on this point: when was the Dublin Core created as an organization? It began in 1995 but as an informal internet-mediated community. In recent years this has increasingly solidified until now there is a legal entity; http://dublincore.org/about-us/ The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) is an open organization, incorporated in Singapore as a public, not-for-profit Company limited by Guarantee (registration number 200823602C), engaged in the development of interoperable metadata standards that support a broad range of purposes and business models. RDF doesn't natively handle the representation of changes over time. In some contexts we'll want to talk as if there is a single thing that existed since 1995. In some other contexts we'll want to be precise, and talk of the legal entity in Singapore. RDF has the basics to allow this kind of separation and folding together of perspectives, but in everyday practice we don't yet do it very well, to be honest. I'd be interested to see proposals for refining the Dublin Core's self-description to include a more detailed picture using the Org: vocab... cheers, Dan
Re: Organization ontology
Peristeras, Vassilios wrote: Hello all, I have the feeling that we are (at least partly) reinventing the wheel here. There have been several initiatives drafting generic models and representations for organizations. Just two examples below [1][2] which go back to 90ies. More generally, an in-depth look at design and data patterns literature could also help a lot. I have the feeling that others before this group have defined concepts like organization, legal entity etc... We could re-use their conceptual (or data or formal) models, instead of starting the discussion from scratch. Best regards, Vassilios [1] http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/enterprise/enterprise/ontology.html [2] http://www.eil.utoronto.ca/enterprise-modelling/tove/ Both of your links point to PDFs or Postscript docs. Are there any actual ontology doc URLs? Kingsley -Original Message- From: public-egov-ig-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dave Reynolds Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 11:27 AM To: Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) Cc: Linked Data community; public-egov...@w3.org Subject: Re: Organization ontology On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 01:03 +0300, Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) wrote: Sorry for jumping in. I was thinking that a) the way i get FormalOrganization, it could as well be called LegalEntity to be more precise. Not quite, there are other LegalEntities that are not Organizations. The LegalEntity notion could be made explicit: org:FormalOrganization subClassOf org:Organization AND ns:LegalEntity This is better modelling because the primitive concepts are now explicit and the nature of org:FormalOrganization as a derived concept is clear. I nearly did it that way but my concern was that putting LegalEntity into org: would open up a whole can of worms about needing richer modelling of the notion of LegalEntity (e.g. Jurisdiction etc). That would be off topic for the focused goals and requirements for org. b) what happens when organizations change legal status? Pretty much any aspect of organizations change over time :) In the context of this work there are already separate approaches to handling versioning and change so org: defers to those. Though, in some applications you do want to explicitly represent the historical trace of those changes hence the inclusion of OPMV via org:ChangeEvent to give a minimal foundation for that. Cheers, Dave -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Re: Organization types predicates vs classes
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:21 PM, William Waites william.wai...@okfn.org wrote: On 10-06-08 04:27, Todd Vincent wrote: By adding OrganizationType to the Organization data model, you provide the ability to modify the type of organization and can then represent both (legal) entities and (legally unrecognized) organizations. :foo rdf:type SomeKindOfOrganisation . vs. :foo org:organisationType SomeKindOfOrganisation . I don't really see the need for an extra predicate with almost identical semantics to rdf:type. There is nothing stopping a subject from having more than one type. Yes, exactly. The schema guarantees things will have multiple types. The art is to know when to bother mentioning each type. Saying things are an rdfs:Resource is rarely interesting. Saying they're a foaf:Agent is also pretty bland and uninformative. The mid-level classes around Organization are generally more interesting, and folk using local / community-extended classes (foo:CultLikeOrganization bar:SomePreciseSubClassOrg etc) probably ought to mention mid-level classes too. Some day we'll get support for these distinctions from the big RDF aggregators and from analysis of code, SPARQL queries etc, so we know which terms are most likely to be understood. BTW the syntax of RDFa (compared to RDF/XML) makes it easy and much less ugly to mention extra types and relations. Mentioning a second relationship in original syntax of RDF/XML is particularly verbose. In RDFa we have space-separated lists of qualified names, which significantly reduces the cost of mixing general (widely understood) classes with precise (but more obscure) community extensions. This is a pretty good thing :) cheers, Dan
Re: Organization ontology
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: Peristeras, Vassilios wrote: Hello all, I have the feeling that we are (at least partly) reinventing the wheel here. There have been several initiatives drafting generic models and representations for organizations. Just two examples below [1][2] which go back to 90ies. More generally, an in-depth look at design and data patterns literature could also help a lot. I have the feeling that others before this group have defined concepts like organization, legal entity etc... We could re-use their conceptual (or data or formal) models, instead of starting the discussion from scratch. Best regards, Vassilios [1] http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/enterprise/enterprise/ontology.html [2] http://www.eil.utoronto.ca/enterprise-modelling/tove/ Both of your links point to PDFs or Postscript docs. Are there any actual ontology doc URLs? The enterprise ontology page is HTML and describes availability as The formal Ontolingua encoding of the Enterprise Ontology is held in the Library of Ontologies maintained by Stanford University's Knowledge Systems Lab (KSL). http://www-ksl-svc.stanford.edu:5915/FRAME-EDITOR/UID-15908sid=ANONYMOUSuser-id=ALIEN Last modified: Monday, 31 May 2010 sounds fresher than I expected. There's LISP here: http://www-ksl-svc.stanford.edu:5915/FRAME-EDITOR/UID-15901sid=ANONYMOUSuser-id=ALIEN#ENTERPRISE-ONTOLOGY I guess there must be an OWL conversion tool around somewhere. I've copied Mike Uschold who may have more to say on this... cheers, Dan
Re: Organizations changing status
On 06/08/2010 01:17 PM, William Waites wrote: On 10-06-07 23:03, Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) wrote: b) what happens when organizations change legal status? I'm not certain but I don't think this ever really happens. In practice the old organisation ceases to exist and a new one comes into being possibly with a period of overlap. They may share the same name and informally be referred to as the same but technically they are different organisations. Not necessarily in cases I had in mind, for example a general partnership may actually evolve into a public company. Within the context of local legislation, such a change may not accept an old new org logic. This actually makes sense not only within a legal perspective but within an operational as well, where it is only the type of the organization that changes. Everything else, including VAT number, pending financial or other transactions etc. are not affected. -- Manos Batsis, Chief Technologist ___ _/ /_ (_)_ __ / __ `/ __ \/ / ___/ ___// __ `/ ___/ / /_/ / /_/ / (__ |__ )/ /_/ / / \__,_/_.___/_//(_)__, /_/ // http://www.Abiss.gr 19, Kalvou Street, 14231, Nea Ionia, Athens, Greece Tel: +30 211-1027-900 Fax: +30 211-1027-999 http://gr.linkedin.com/in/manosbatsis attachment: manos.vcf
Re: Organization types predicates vs classes
On 06/08/2010 01:21 PM, William Waites wrote: On 10-06-08 04:27, Todd Vincent wrote: By adding OrganizationType to the Organization data model, you provide the ability to modify the type of organization and can then represent both (legal) entities and (legally unrecognized) organizations. :foo rdf:type SomeKindOfOrganisation . vs. :foo org:organisationType SomeKindOfOrganisation . I don't really see the need for an extra predicate with almost identical semantics to rdf:type. There is nothing stopping a subject from having more than one type. Got mixed feelings on this. On one hand, this would work well with existing code or whatnot. A new prop however offers the ability to limit the domain, which always guides people to the light and all. -- Manos Batsis, Chief Technologist ___ _/ /_ (_)_ __ / __ `/ __ \/ / ___/ ___// __ `/ ___/ / /_/ / /_/ / (__ |__ )/ /_/ / / \__,_/_.___/_//(_)__, /_/ // http://www.Abiss.gr 19, Kalvou Street, 14231, Nea Ionia, Athens, Greece Tel: +30 211-1027-900 Fax: +30 211-1027-999 http://gr.linkedin.com/in/manosbatsis attachment: manos.vcf
Re: Slideshare.net as Linked Data
Olaf, just the fellow :) I was thinking I'd like to see (as we were just discussing about Linked Open Services in Crete) a bit of: prv:retrievedBy [ a prv:DataAccess ; prv:accessedService [... foaf:homepage http://slideshare.net/ ] ; prv:performedAt 2010-06-07T20:59:42+00:00^^xsd:dateTime ; prv:performedBy http://linkeddata.few.vu.nl/slideshare/ ] Barry On 07/06/2010 21:53, Olaf Hartig wrote: Hey Paul, Great work. Thanks! On Monday 07 June 2010 21:16:11 Paul Groth wrote: [...] What do you think is the most appropriate approach linking out from existing data sources is? The most valuable interlinking from my POV would be links between the Slideshare data and peoples' personal data (i.e. FOAF files). A good start would be for you to also mint URIs in your namespace for the sioc:Account (instead of using the Slideshare URL) because these URIs could be used by people in their FOAF file in order to link to your dataset. Adding such links to your datasets seems much more challenging, very valuable nonetheless. Greetings, Olaf
Re: Please stop massive crawling against http://openean.kaufkauf.net/id/
Robert Fuller wrote: Hi, Sindice clearly identifies itself in the user agent http header. Currently we use these user agents: 1. Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; sindice-fetcher/0.1.0 +http://sindice.com/developers/bot) 2. SindiceFetcher/Ping Manager (http://sindice.com/developers/bot; 3. sindice.net ontology fetcher Niceness is implemented in our main fetcher. In some cases there may be bursts on sites providing distributed ontologies. Speaking with the group here it seems unlikely that we have not been hitting kaufkauf.net, however if you can provide an IP address I can do some further verification. I understand that http://lod.openlinksw.com/sparql is now hosted at DERI, and I wonder could some of the traffic be related to that? Again, if you can provide an IP address I will do some further verification. Robert, As indicated by Martin, the http://lod.openlinksw.com instance hosted at DERI should negate the need to go back to the original source. Others: The LOD Cloud Cache at DERI is a live Virtuoso instance with 15 Billion+ Triples loaded. It covers as much of the LOD Cloud as we've be able to get our hands on plus 6.4 Billion Triples from the Data.Gov effort. I'll drop a more detailed note about this instance (via blog post) once we are done with data loading (there's a massive collection of eCommerce oriented Products Services data to be loaded amongst others). Kingsley Kind regards, Rob. -- Robert Fuller Research Associate DERI, Galway -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Re: Please stop massive crawling against http://openean.kaufkauf.net/id/
Robert Fuller wrote: Kingsley Idehen wrote: The LOD Cloud Cache at DERI is a live Virtuoso instance with 15 Billion+ Triples loaded. It covers as much of the LOD Cloud as we've be able to get our hands on plus 6.4 Billion Triples from the Data.Gov effort. I'll drop a more detailed note about this instance (via blog post) once we are done with data loading (there's a massive collection of eCommerce oriented Products Services data to be loaded amongst others). I wonder is this data load the culprit responsible for the massive crawling? I don't understand how it can be. That said, there might be services out there crawling the instance (as they do DBpedia) which then leads them to the actual original data space (even though all the data is actually in the lod.openlinksw.com instance) :-( We'll double check to see that robots.txt is crystal clear re. crawl paths. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Re: Discogs Linked Data
Hi, On 7 June 2010 13:51, zazi z...@elbklang.net wrote: Hi Leigh, I contacted you a while ago re. the Discogs dataset. It would be glad, if you could send me the mapping code you wrote for the Discogs RDFizer. I plan to include such a RDFizer also in my Master-like project, so I would be very happy to have a nice starting project, where I can continue.. I would like to make heavy use of the extended release concept, which is included into the Music Ontology 2.0. As pointed out earlier in the thread, the code for the conversion can be found here: http://code.google.com/p/dataincubator/source/browse/#svn/trunk/discogs/scripts You should be able to check it out directly from SVN. The Rakefile provides some tasks for grabbing the latest dumps, you can then run the convert script to generate the dump files for artists, labels, and releases. Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.do...@talis.com http://www.talis.com
Re: Organization ontology
All, I personally am not aware of what the latest status of the Enterprise Ontology is. I would not assume that Last modified: Monday, 31 May 2010 means anything significant happened recently. I originally encoded the Enterprise Ontology into Ontolingua syntax, and there might have been a Ontolingua to DAML converter that someone ran on the KSL library of ontologies, and these might have been converted into OWL. Deborah McGuinness may know about this, having been at KSL for when the DAML and OWL were created. For what it is worth, I regularly get inquiries about the Enterprise Ontology, maybe a few a year, so it seems to still be getting some active use, at least from the point of view of its core concepts, if not a formal version. Having said that, the Enterprise ontology is not very large, and it would be a modest effort to create an OWL version of it from scratch - based on the paper. I'll be happy do to it, if there are some resources available. A blast from the past! Michael On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: Peristeras, Vassilios wrote: Hello all, I have the feeling that we are (at least partly) reinventing the wheel here. There have been several initiatives drafting generic models and representations for organizations. Just two examples below [1][2] which go back to 90ies. More generally, an in-depth look at design and data patterns literature could also help a lot. I have the feeling that others before this group have defined concepts like organization, legal entity etc... We could re-use their conceptual (or data or formal) models, instead of starting the discussion from scratch. Best regards, Vassilios [1] http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/enterprise/enterprise/ontology.html [2] http://www.eil.utoronto.ca/enterprise-modelling/tove/ Both of your links point to PDFs or Postscript docs. Are there any actual ontology doc URLs? The enterprise ontology page is HTML and describes availability as The formal Ontolingua encoding of the Enterprise Ontology is held in the Library of Ontologies maintained by Stanford University's Knowledge Systems Lab (KSL). http://www-ksl-svc.stanford.edu:5915/FRAME-EDITOR/UID-15908sid=ANONYMOUSuser-id=ALIEN Last modified: Monday, 31 May 2010 sounds fresher than I expected. There's LISP here: http://www-ksl-svc.stanford.edu:5915/FRAME-EDITOR/UID-15901sid=ANONYMOUSuser-id=ALIEN#ENTERPRISE-ONTOLOGY I guess there must be an OWL conversion tool around somewhere. I've copied Mike Uschold who may have more to say on this... cheers, Dan -- Michael Uschold, PhD LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu Skype: UscholdM
cfp: IJSWIS - Special Issue on Induction on the Semantic Web
Special Issue on Induction on the Semantic Web in the International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (http://www.ijswis.org/) == Submission deadline: September 15, 2010 Overview Increasingly, real-world data is published in the Semantic Web languages. The vast availability of these data has uncovered one of the main current limitations of deductive reasoning (generally adopted in the Semantic Web context), i.e., its severe limitation when scaling to large amounts of data. Alternative approaches such as data mining and machine learning methods could effectively cope with the web's scale and can also be used to capture new knowledge emerging from the data that is not logically derivable. However, exploiting this global resource of data requires new perspective in perfoming data mining and machine learning that need to be able to deal with the heterogeneity and complexity of Semantic Web data. Depending on the data sources under consideration and the point of view of the individual researcher, the idiosyncrasies of the Semantic web -- e.g., the expressivity of the employed language, the richness of the ontologies novel assumptions (e.g., open world) -- might play a major role in the analysis.. The primary goal of the special issue is to showcase cutting edge research on the intersection of the Semantic Web with Knowledge Discovery and Machine Learning, e.g.: - How can machine learning techniques, such as statistical learning methods and inductive forms of reasoning, work directly on the richly structured Semantic Web data and exploit the Semantic Web technologies? - How could machine learning techniques contribute to the full realization of the Semantic Web view? - What are the challenges for developers of machine learning techniques for the Semantic Web data? Topics The topics of interest of the special issue include, but are not limited to: - Knowledge Discovery and Ontologies: - data mining techniques using ontologies, - ontology mining and knowledge discovery from ontological knowledge bases, - ontology-based interpretation and validation of discovered knowledge, - whole knowledge discovery process guided by ontologies - Knowledge Discovery and Linked Data: - learning ontologies from Linked Data, - discovering hidden knowledge from Linked Data, - learning semantic relationship from Linked Data - Inductive Reasoning with Concept Languages: - inductive aggregation, - concept retrieval and query answering, - approximate classification, - inductive methods and fuzzy reasoning for ontology mapping, - construction, refinement and evolution of ontologies - concept change and novelty detection for ontology evolution - Statistical learning for the Semantic Web: - refinement operators for concept and rule languages, - concept and rules learning, - kernels and instance-based learning for structured representations, - semantic (dis-)similarity measures and conceptual clustering, - probabilistic methods for concept and rule languages - Other topics: - Open World Assumption (OWA) vs. Closed World Assumption (CWA) in learning, - applicability of relational learning in the Semantic Web context, - integration of induction and deduction, - evaluation methodologies and metrics for machine learning methods applied to ontologies - Applications: - challenges in practical applications of Machine Learning/Data Mining on the Semantic Web - life sciences, - cultural heritage, - semantic multimedia, - geo-informatics, - bio-informatics, - Semantic Web Services, - and others Submission Process Submissions to this special issue should follow the journal's guidelines for submission, and be made via the IJSWIS Submission System. After submitting a paper, please also inform the guest editors by email. Papers must be of high quality and should clearly state the technical issue(s) being addressed as related to Induction on the Semantic Web. Wherever possible, submissions should demonstrate the contribution of the research by reporting on a systematic evaluation of the work. If a submission is based on a prior publication in a workshop or conference, the journal submission must involve substantial advance (a minimum of 30%) in conceptual terms as well as in exposition (e.g., more comprehensive testing/evaluation/validation or additional applications/usage). If this applies to your submission, please explicitly reveal the relevant previous publications and describe enhancements to the previous version as an appendix so the reviewers have easy access to the details. The recommended length of submitted papers is between 5,500 to 8,000 words. All papers are subject to peer review performed by at least three established researchers drawn from a panel of experts selected for this special issue. Accepted papers will undergo for a second cycle
Re: Organization types predicates vs classes
On 10-06-08 11:48, Dan Brickley wrote: Yes, exactly. The schema guarantees things will have multiple types. The art is to know when to bother mentioning each type. Saying things are an rdfs:Resource is rarely interesting. FWIW, I actually put (using an inferencer) rdfs:Resource on everything in [1][2] because I use the fresnel vocabulary to display things. This means I can make a generic lens like this, :resourceLens a fresnel:Lens ; fresnel:purpose fresnel:defaultLens ; fresnel:classLensDomain rdfs:Resource ; fresnel:showProperties ( rdf:type fresnel:allProperties ) . to use as a default. [1] http://knowledgeforge/pdw/ordf/ [2] http://bibliographica.org/ -- William Waites william.wai...@okfn.org Mob: +44 789 798 9965Open Knowledge Foundation Fax: +44 131 464 4948Edinburgh, UK
Re: Discogs Linked Data
As pointed out earlier in the thread, the code for the conversion can be found here: http://code.google.com/p/dataincubator/source/browse/#svn/trunk/discogs/scripts Hi Leigh - should we go ahead and start using the issue cue associated with that project to document the Unicode problems and others? On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Leigh Dodds leigh.do...@talis.com wrote: Hi, On 7 June 2010 13:51, zazi z...@elbklang.net wrote: Hi Leigh, I contacted you a while ago re. the Discogs dataset. It would be glad, if you could send me the mapping code you wrote for the Discogs RDFizer. I plan to include such a RDFizer also in my Master-like project, so I would be very happy to have a nice starting project, where I can continue.. I would like to make heavy use of the extended release concept, which is included into the Music Ontology 2.0. As pointed out earlier in the thread, the code for the conversion can be found here: http://code.google.com/p/dataincubator/source/browse/#svn/trunk/discogs/scripts You should be able to check it out directly from SVN. The Rakefile provides some tasks for grabbing the latest dumps, you can then run the convert script to generate the dump files for artists, labels, and releases. Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.do...@talis.com http://www.talis.com
Re: Organization types predicates vs classes
FWIW, I believe that if you are going to tackle the issue of Organization types (predicates vs classes) in the context of Government, then you may as well pick the low hanging fruit of Privacy. To put it another way, it is very easy to keep a Public Persona and a Private Persona separate as long as you do it at a low enough level. This is important for continuity of the Law, and has only tangential application where the mission of Organizations ends, voluntarily or involuntarily. Dissolution is not quite death. To use Sandro's example, Patrick Deval has a Public Persona as well as an automatically generated Private Persona. Note that miscellaneous Personal Information is not Private Information.: rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#; xmlns:db=http://dbpedia.org/resource/; xmlns:pii=http://purl.org/pii/terms/; rdf:Description rdf:about=http://dbpedia.org/resource/Massachusetts; db:Governor rdf:Description rdf:about=http://dbpedia.org/resource/Deval_Patrick; rdf:type rdf:resource=http://purl.org/pii/terms/misc; / /rdf:Description /db:Governor db:NicknameBay State/db:Nickname db:Capital rdf:Description rdf:about=http://dbpedia.org/resource/Boston; db:NicknameBeantown/db:Nickname /rdf:Description /db:Capital /rdf:Description /rdf:RDF rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#; xmlns:db=http://dbpedia.org/resource/; xmlns:pii=http://purl.org/pii/terms/; rdf:Description rdf:about=http://dbpedia.org/resource/Massachusetts; db:Governor rdf:Description rdf:about=http://dbpedia.org/resource/Governor; rdf:type rdf:resource=http://purl.org/pii/terms/misc; / /rdf:Description /db:Governor db:NicknameBay State/db:Nickname db:Capital rdf:Description rdf:about=http://dbpedia.org/resource/Boston; db:NicknameBeantown/db:Nickname /rdf:Description /db:Capital /rdf:Description /rdf:RDF --- On Tue, 6/8/10, William Waites william.wai...@okfn.org wrote: From: William Waites william.wai...@okfn.org Subject: Re: Organization types predicates vs classes To: Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org Cc: public-egov...@w3.org public-egov...@w3.org, Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 11:33 AM On 10-06-08 11:48, Dan Brickley wrote: Yes, exactly. The schema guarantees things will have multiple types. The art is to know when to bother mentioning each type. Saying things are an rdfs:Resource is rarely interesting. FWIW, I actually put (using an inferencer) rdfs:Resource on everything in [1][2] because I use the fresnel vocabulary to display things. This means I can make a generic lens like this, :resourceLens a fresnel:Lens ; fresnel:purpose fresnel:defaultLens ; fresnel:classLensDomain rdfs:Resource ; fresnel:showProperties ( rdf:type fresnel:allProperties ) . to use as a default. [1] http://knowledgeforge/pdw/ordf/ [2] http://bibliographica.org/ -- William Waites william.wai...@okfn.org Mob: +44 789 798 9965 Open Knowledge Foundation Fax: +44 131 464 4948 Edinburgh, UK
Re: Discogs Linked Data
Hi, Yes, that's a good idea. We might also want to take this discussion over to the dataincubator list (again! :) rather than continue here. Cheers, L. On 8 June 2010 18:23, Kurt J kur...@gmail.com wrote: As pointed out earlier in the thread, the code for the conversion can be found here: http://code.google.com/p/dataincubator/source/browse/#svn/trunk/discogs/scripts Hi Leigh - should we go ahead and start using the issue cue associated with that project to document the Unicode problems and others? On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Leigh Dodds leigh.do...@talis.com wrote: Hi, On 7 June 2010 13:51, zazi z...@elbklang.net wrote: Hi Leigh, I contacted you a while ago re. the Discogs dataset. It would be glad, if you could send me the mapping code you wrote for the Discogs RDFizer. I plan to include such a RDFizer also in my Master-like project, so I would be very happy to have a nice starting project, where I can continue.. I would like to make heavy use of the extended release concept, which is included into the Music Ontology 2.0. As pointed out earlier in the thread, the code for the conversion can be found here: http://code.google.com/p/dataincubator/source/browse/#svn/trunk/discogs/scripts You should be able to check it out directly from SVN. The Rakefile provides some tasks for grabbing the latest dumps, you can then run the convert script to generate the dump files for artists, labels, and releases. Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.do...@talis.com http://www.talis.com Please consider the environment before printing this email. Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/ shared innovation™ Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited. Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB. -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.do...@talis.com http://www.talis.com
Re: Slideshare.net as Linked Data
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Paul Groth pgr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I've wrapped the Slideshare.net API to expose it as RDF. You can find a blog post about the service at [1] and the service itself at [2]. An interesting bit is how we deal with Slideshare's API limits by letting you use your own API key. It's still needs to be properly linked (i.e. point to other resources on the WoD) but we're working on it. [1] http://thinklinks.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/linking-slideshare-data/ [2] http://linkeddata.few.vu.nl/slideshare/ Cool :) How does it relate to the RDFa they're embedding? (There's definitely a role for value-adding, even for sites that embed per-page RDF already...) cheers, Dan Let me know what you think, Thanks, Paul -- Dr. Paul Groth (pgr...@few.vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Postdoc Knowledge Representation Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
Re: Slideshare.net as Linked Data
On 8 June 2010 04:34, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Paul Groth pgr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I've wrapped the Slideshare.net API to expose it as RDF. You can find a blog post about the service at [1] and the service itself at [2]. An interesting bit is how we deal with Slideshare's API limits by letting you use your own API key. It's still needs to be properly linked (i.e. point to other resources on the WoD) but we're working on it. [1] http://thinklinks.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/linking-slideshare-data/ [2] http://linkeddata.few.vu.nl/slideshare/ Cool :) How does it relate to the RDFa they're embedding? The RDFa that they embed won't be recognised by a typical RDFa processor. It is only written to the DOM using Javascript, so it will never get picked up by HTML-only robots. Exposing the API directly as RDF is much more valuable IMO. Cheers, Peter
